sigh. it's made from fiber glass and weighs only 120kg including 100km battery. that means it doesn't waste energy carrying undue weight.the sleek body and the disc wheels are similarly optimized regarding aerodynamic drag.the motor is electric which is 3 or more times more efficient than a typical combustion engine.weighs less than 1/10 of a normal car, maybe factor 5-6 aerodynamic advantage compared to a small car. average those and multiply it by 3 and you have about factor 20 improvement.

there is a reason a bicycle is easier to push than a hummer. it's the weight. that difference in difficulty translates to energy consumption. isn't it obvious?

Good morning Dan

How did you come up with those numbers, did you make any calculations regarding the weigh and aerodynamics or do you have access to one of those funky fluid dynamic calculating computers (friends at scaled, they are GOOD in both weird aerodynamics and composites ).

Again Dan, please give us some numbers, give us some more details about your design, as you know, assumption are useless in this case.

Oke Dan, let me give you an example:

a small cars lifetime is lets say 200.000 kmlets take a look at the Smart CDI, its a diesel, runs 1/30, cost about 13.300 (euros)1L disel = 1 euro

hehe I feel like a human in one of those zombie movies. If I show any signs of life you all come running at me, mindlessly.

the Tata Nano has passed european crash test and will likely be sold in Europe..not that it's required... quadbikes are sold as cars here. as cars.a 120kg composite vehicle can easily pass crash tests.

some of the values are of course estimated, at 30Wh/km you can do the math yourself on driving cost. as solar panels get cheaper, driving a light electric car will become virtually free.granted you'd likely need new batteries at some point during 200000km drive but it's a small pack and they will become a lot cheaper in the next 7-10 years. I imagine such a pack could be gotten for 500 euro then, maybe even with inflation.Estimated sale price of 8000 euro for the vehicle.If you want more information, you'll need an attitude change culture.

Man, i've given you a chance to start a honest discussion and prove you are a smart lad but so far you have come up with noting. What about those numbers Dan. i asked you several times. no rule of thumb.

Let me tell you one thing, the (highly efficient) engine used in the nuna 5 will set you back 8000 euros, how on earth do you think to produce complete a car for only 8000 ??!?!

if it's difficult for you to grasp that an electric motor could cost less than 8000 euro then I'm not sure what I can do for you. A 3 phase Etek motor costs 299$ for instance, semi retail even. Although I use the DC version so far, 2 of those will get it to 100km/h in 4 seconds.

if it's difficult for you to grasp that an electric motor could cost less than 8000 euro then I'm not sure what I can do for you. A 3 phase Etek motor costs 299$ for instance, semi retail even. Although I use the DC version so far, 2 of those will get it to 100km/h in 4 seconds.

Still no numbers Dan... do you actually have any??

we're stuck at 2 x 299$ and an (in my opinion) a nice looking cad drawing of a highly impractical car which wheels will come off at the first corner with an estimated price tag of 8000 euros..

"Let me tell you one thing, the (highly efficient) engine used in the nuna 5 will set you back 8000 euros, how on earth do you think to produce complete a car for only 8000 ??!?!"

you said this as if it was ridiculous to think a suitable electric motor could cost anything less, as if it was obvious to all from that observation that my design was folly, yet now that I have demonstrated how erroneous your conclusion was you don't pause and rethink. you just desperately go on to the next idiotic conclusion that the wheels will fall off.. and if I demonstrate how erroneous that is as well you will just go on being mindless. so why should I...

Why did you opt for chain drive over belt drive? Seems like belt drive would be a better option for your application since they're lighter, require less maintenance, no lubrication, and don't stretch over time like chains. Are you just using the chain drive for prototyping since it is easier to change gearing?

"Let me tell you one thing, the (highly efficient) engine used in the nuna 5 will set you back 8000 euros, how on earth do you think to produce complete a car for only 8000 ??!?!"

you said this as if it was ridiculous to think a suitable electric motor could cost anything less, as if it was obvious to all from that observation that my design was folly, yet now that I have demonstrated how erroneous your conclusion was you don't pause and rethink. you just desperately go on to the next idiotic conclusion that the wheels will fall off.. and if I demonstrate how erroneous that is as well you will just go on being mindless. so why should I...

Hi Dan!

lets set something straight:

Quote:

you said this as if it was ridiculous to think a suitable electric motor could cost anything less

Not true, never used the word ridiculous Dan, I thought you only used very high efficiency product (Ultra efficient) so this motor seemed to be a good reference point. I'm obviously mistaken, you're able to achieve your goals with less efficient and of course much cheaper parts.

For now, it's my guess, to make your design work without it's wheels falling off or being a death trap, you will need some exotic materials and fabrication techniques. that will cost you way more than 8000$. But than again, this is my assumption, you have the numbers.... prove me wrong genius!

So lets try again, can you provide me/us with some more information. This way we can have a proper discussion.

My personal belief is that you should not judge anyone unless you are prepared to be judged yourself. A public forum will undoubtly provoke people who will judge much more harshly that you might be able to accept.

Further, if you are not really involved in even the same industry, don't comment negatively about it. What is it to you what other people do? Do you have something to gain/lose from it? If not, stay away or be nice.

Just as I don't like someone downtalking my achievements, I should not do it to someone else.

Rather be encouraging and supportive of someone else's ventures. Be it a hobby or livelihood.

Being in the same industry as AA, I have a common interest in their acheivements. I believe that everyone benefits from each other's success. Be it small or large.

Recently, I saw a comment on Youtube about one of AA's projects. This person claimed that they could do a LLC Level 2 with only a weekend's work. As anyone with practical experience can tell you, that is absurd. Obviously the poster declined to take the challenge.

My point is that many people underestimate what is being done by AA and others in this industry.

Some people are just ignorant while others are oblivious to reality.

Someone recently implied if you don't build rockets or at least want to learn how to, stay away from here. I don't feel as strongly but share the basic sentiment.

All the best all of your endeavours! (If it has to do with Rockets, so much the better!)

Being following this thread with much curiosity. I think I know where Dan may be coming from although his way of putting it across w.r.t Team AA's achievements is rather divisive.

It's a question of whether a iterative, incremental approach (ie ARCA) would be feasible as opposed to what I would call 'Big Science' approach; setting a ambitious target and throw tonnes of money at it, ie Paul Allen, Biglow and Musk.

Goddard started small much like what AA has done with incremental improvements and laid the foundation work for Von Braun. But would Goddard, given another 20 years build something like the V-2? Or would he be still tinking? No one can really answer that question. I don't think there is a right answer. There are examples of success and failures on both sides of the equation.

koxinga, you sort of get it right except I'm not proposing they spend a lot of money as opposed to a small amount. I'm proposing a minimum weight to orbit which I think will cost even less than their suborbital turist program. and I think likely much less.

John has said 'eventually orbit' as following suborbital flights but it seems like it's not quite real in John's mind. What I'm urging is that he will have a similar rise in awareness as he did a decade ago that rocketry is easy, that low weight orbit is easy and from that awereness get the appetite to go for it rather than play with safe models that might go on forever and never amount to anything goal worthy.

I guess in order to understand the absolute necessity that I am arguing from, you have to understand how nasa and other space agencies betray the world with their mindless incompetence and tied hands by the greater evil the military. they have and will string you along for adult lucid lifetimes. you have to understand that we are in a mental prison where evil rules the day with softspoken lies and false flattery. where they fly the idiotic space shuttle and wave the flag and you're fooled by it. subconsciously you know the shuttle is a turkey but you don't think to really question it. reality is a spiritual game and only uncompromising conviction will see you through to the real success. pussy and money aint it. that's part of the prison. most of you will not understand.

Swing-axle suspensions have a horrible failure mode that is very dangerous. Since you have decided to have the motors move with the suspension, adding a lot of un-sprung weight, anyway, have you considered the much safer and easier to design live-axle?

Also, do your range calculations take into account occupant weight? I for instance, weigh nearly as much as the car itself, as you've described it. I think this would negatively impact the range and speed attainable. Even two fit people would cumulatively weigh well more than the car does.

I live in the southern U.S. How do you propose to keep the occupants safely cool in an enclosed space on a summer day? (air temperature easily reaches 46 degrees C) You live in Denmark, I think you get snowed over, how do you propose to keep the occupants warm on a long trip in the middle of winter?

I regularly have to travel more than 600km in day, round trip, for business. How do you propose to provide for extended range? Should i just take a filthy, polluting airplane?

You claim the car would easily pass crash tests at it's weight. However, I care not for crash tests, but actual safety of the occupants. How do you propose to keep the occupants safe when they are hit by a Hummer (or any other full-size truck which are quite popular in these parts?) I am sure you understand that however compelling your solution may be, the world can not, will not, switch overnight. Your cars will have to co-exist with others on the road for quite some time.

What about accessories. Have you considered the current draw of headlights, tail-lights, and other necessary components?

How the heck does a person get into that back seat?

What about the physically disabled? How do you plan to accommodate a paraplegic. Shoot, how do you plan to accommodate just about anyone over 60? How do you plan to accommodate a passenger under the age of 6-ish? (special safety requirements, there.)

Where are my cup-holders? Sort of joking, but not, really. You do have to sell these to the public, most of whom lack your enlightenment.

I am seriously concerned by the lack of contact area on what appear to be very skinny wheels and tires. What do you predict the road-holding of this vehicle would be (in Gs). I see no signs of brakes, but I assume the car would have some. In what distance do you predict the car will stop from 100kmh with two occupants weighing, perhaps 200kg in total? These characteristics are very relevant to safety.

I have many more questions for, but I'll stop there. Also, you should set up a forum on your website so discussion of your vehicle could continue, there.

With regard to people saying you were rude to AA and John Carmack. I submit that perhaps you should take your own advice and consider the possibility that you may have been in the wrong in your approach even if you may have been right in the content.

One last thing. I'm sure, if you think about it long enough, you will come to the conclusion that, at the heart of it, "pussy and money" (how crude) are, in fact, everything. Thinking they are not is intellectual navel-gazing, in my opinion. What I mean is, that the same base drive that people have to pursue those in the direct sense, is the same thing that drives us to explore and create and try to save the world.

jdoege, if you can facilitate AA's shift towards asap orbit, I will stipulate you had a better way. it's possible I could have done it better but it's also quite possible I did very well.

you are right to observe my concept car has a disadvantage against heavier cars, just as a moronic hummer has a disadvantage against an abrams. all cars have to be lighter and early adopters risk their lives to do the right thing. you would know this had you thought about it instead of blaming me for the truth.

interesting idea on the forum but I'm quite busy developing and getting funding dragged out of the idiots who should be funding it and who even call for green projects to be funded. I have applied from quite a few by now. like many on this forum they mindlessly rely on prejudice so they don't see the merit and when encouraged to reconsider they still dont think. so if it's never to be, I dont feel like talking endlessly with people about it on a forum. more enclined to sit back and let the world suffer its gargantuan stupidity. but maybe

live axle is not easier and it doesn't have better unsprung mass even if you also decouple the motors. my motors are near the pivot. that matters. as for failure mode, I think decent steel bends before it fails and even if it falls off without any indication (quite unlikely) it might be controllable with 3 wheels. the only dislike I have about the choice is that the wheel tilts and shifts under suspension travel. it's not ideal but has many advantages so I chose it.

the rear seat is like a coupe, front seat flips forward.

lights are LED, use quite little power (maybe 15watt) and the car has a battery onboard..

heating and cooling could be AC but not planned on the prototype. can be added if it turns commercial.

range is with one adult european person or one USA child of course it uses more power with more weight, that's why it's made so light. weight is the enemy. not unlike rocketry even though it seems to have escaped nasa.

grip should be fine with the right tires. it is my understanding that in the simple case of friction physics, given a specific tire material, the G-grip of a car is invariant with regard to the tire width, diameter and weight of the car. that might sound very counter intuitive but I believe it to be scientifically sound with minor caveats. maybe think of braking distance for a bicycle. it is not meant as a racer though, despite the airplane appearance. it could race but would perhaps need a thicker wheel axle for lateral g shock. not that a porsche can hold its wheels when it slides into curb at speed.

my concept doesn't have to fit every need, which includes your 600km trips (kudos on using proper units though). it's no good as an excavator either. BUT, because it's so light it takes very little to power it so a moped engine based backup generator could keep it going as a gas car. another option is a high power charger that could charge it 80% in about 10 minutes. that's possible with the battery technology and because it's a relatively small pack that requires less power of the charging station to be that quick. a Tesla pack is 15x larger for instance (though their batteries couldn't take that speed)as for long trips, I have a variant in mind that can fly. one of the benefits of lean design.

as for the handicapped, that's not an honest question. cars are customized for the handicapped. my concept could however be adapted for handicap use fairly easily with a thicker sandwich floor so the bottom side can open so you can sit directly in.

I haven't designed the interior in detail and might wait until such time there is a physical prototype to lay that out. but there should be plenty of space for cup holders. it should be quite roomy sideways. should it come to commercialization, given likely funding issues, it's quite possible the interior would be kept simple at first meaning no cup holders.

I think the term genius gets thrown around somewhat liberally these days. A self-proclaimed genius is held to a higher standard of proof than one universally recognized. I think comparisons to Einstein are especially premature given his body of work. Having an entire branch of physics described by your name, or an element in the periodic table being given your name is probably a little much for you to challenge at this point in your life.

Some brief list of your accomplishments would go a long way towards lending credulity to your, so far, unproven case for genius. Perhaps a little background is needed.

What discipline did you study in university, which university did you attend?What is your post-graduate degree discipline?What is the name of your doctoral thesis, and where was it published?Have you been published, or had any paper peer-reviewed?Where are you doing your post-doctoral work?Can you please list your patents and the nations and offices they have been registered in?Please provide any theorem attributed to you that provides any mathematical proof heretofore unknown before it's time.Please list any corporations or governments that have relied on your genius to further their cause for humanity.Any awards, medals, commendations, titles?

By all means refer to yourself as intelligent, cockroaches are intelligent enough to circumvent obstacles in their path. You may refer to yourself as original even, you certainly are unique. Your aggressive hyperbole and lack of tangible proof, however, preclude you from any label remotely synonymous to "genius."